Re: Simple Problem (need help with notation)

But ok, its not the only way to do this. The problem is, (perhaps because of notation) I don't understand your meaning in what you have written in 3 and 4. So perhaps the way to proceed is for you to explain the gist of your proof in plain English and then I can address how to put this in the usual notation.

Re: Simple Problem (need help with notation)

I was making an assumption of p in an attempt to prove m, but got stuck (maybe it is not the best way to go).

That sounds a little bit like a proof by cases. In this method the objective is to show that...p -> (m->q) i.e. assume p to prove m->qand~p -> (m->q) i.e. assume ~p to prove m-> qI think I got this to work, but it was not as sure and satisfying as the proof by contradiction.

Re: Simple Problem (need help with notation)

It seems obvious to common sense that if I bhave proven that if p then q and if not q then not p (which I have through contradiction (RAA)) then I have to extract through logical equivalence as I did in the other proof?